Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 784 (MP)

Shyamlal S/O Babulal v. State Of M. P.

2007-07-24

S.L.KOCHAR

body2007
JUDGMENT : The appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 27/1994, judgment dated 17-11-1994. 2. According to the prosecution case, deceased Santoshbai was married with appellant No. 1 Shyamlal before three years from 26-10-1993 the date of her death because of burn injuries in village Chobharadhira. Appellant Shyamlal reported the incident to police in outpost of the village and on the basis of verification, murg was registered and inquest report (Ex. P. 4) was prepared by the police. Sub Inspector Ajit Singh reached on the scene of occurrence and prepared spot map (Ex. P. 8). He also seized pieces of burn petticoat, sari and one container containing some kerosene through seizure memo (Ex. P.7). The articles seized from the spot were sent through letter (Ex. P. 11) to FSL. The post-mortem was performed by Dr. M. C. Jain (PW. 3). Post-mortem report is Ex. P. 5. During the course of murg enquiry, police recorded the statements of the witnesses and registered the case under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and deceased appellants (mother and father). Crime was registered on 1-11-1993 and statements of witnesses were recorded on 1-12-1993 by B. M. Tiwari (PW. 11). After investigation, appellant, his mother and father were charge-sheeted for the above offence. 3. The accused persons denied the charges. According to them, deceased returned back before four days of her death with frustration because she was molested and harassed as well as abducted forcibly by one Rakesh to commit rape upon her for which she had lodged the report in the police station and possibility of her commission of suicide because of this incident cannot be ruled out. The learned trial Court, found the appellant guilty for the above mentioned offence, convicted as indicated hereinabove. 4. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that father of the deceased, serving in Railway Department was not examined by the police because he was not in favour of registration of the case against the appellants because the allegations levelled by his brother Kailash (PW. 4. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that father of the deceased, serving in Railway Department was not examined by the police because he was not in favour of registration of the case against the appellants because the allegations levelled by his brother Kailash (PW. 8) were not correct and Kailash has admitted in his cross-examination, para nine that he was not willing for the marriage of deceased with appellant Shyamlal and therefore, after the death of deceased, he concocted a false case at a belated stage. The learned counsel has submitted that the village of the appellant is situated nearby to Shujalpur Town where Kailash (PW. 8) was serving and Shujalpur is a Tehsil place, but no report was lodged by Kailash (PW. 8), mother of the deceased Rukmabai (PW. 6) and wife of Kailash (PW. 5) Leelabai immediately on the date of incident or on the next day, though they were given telephonic message for death of deceased and they reached at the house of the appellant on the same day. They all quietly participated in the funeral and after some days, a false case has been concocted against the appellants. The learned counsel has also submitted that Kailash (PW. 8) has stated that he left the deceased at the house of the appellants before four days of the incident and also admonished the father of the appellant not to harass the deceased, at that moment father of the appellant Babulal told him that there could be some minor dispute in the house and he will pacify everything and he asked him to leave his daughter-in-law at his house. After this, there is no evidence on record that within four days, any kind of ill-treatment was done with the deceased for demand of dowry, therefore, conviction under section 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Supreme Court Judgment passed in case of Sham Lal vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 1873 , paras 12 and 13. The learned counsel has also pointed out material contradictions between the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding ill-treatment and demand of dowry. 5. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Supreme Court Judgment passed in case of Sham Lal vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 1873 , paras 12 and 13. The learned counsel has also pointed out material contradictions between the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding ill-treatment and demand of dowry. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for State has supported the impugned judgment and contended that there was no reason for the witnesses to implicate the appellants falsely and if deceased would have committed suicide because of her molestation by Rakesh, the relations of the deceased would have implicated him. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable because before four days of the death of the deceased, she was left at her matrimonial house and there was talk between uncle of deceased Kailash (PW. 7) and father of the appellant (deceased appellant Babulal) that some minor dispute might have taken place in the house and he will admonish everybody and there will be no complaint. Babulal asked Kailash to leave the deceased. After this, there is nothing on record to establish that deceased was ill-treated for demand of dowry. It is also pertinent to note here that when deceased- appellant Babulal reached to take back his daughter-in-law, the complaint was made by Kailash (PW. 8) only for ill-treatment and not regarding demand of any dowry, otherwise Kailash would have complained this to Babulal. He has also stated that when he left the deceased on 22-10-1993 at her matrimonial house and he told mother-in-law of the deceased that if they want anything they should tell him but deceased should not be ill-treated on which deceased-appellant Kamlabai mother-in-law told him that they would keep deceased Santoshbai as their daughter and there would be no ill-treatment. 7. In the light of these positive statements and in view of the Supreme Court judgment passed in case of Sham Lal (supra), it is established that offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code would not be made out against the appellant because there is no evidence on record that within four days, deceased was ill-treated for demand of dowry. In the case of Sham Lal (supra), the accused persons were convicted by the Supreme Court under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of evidence of her father and her dying declaration, but in the instant case father has not been examined and there is no dying declaration of the deceased. 8. This Court has considered the statements of Kailash (PW. 8), Leelabai, wife of Kailash (PW. 5), the uncle and aunt of deceased Santoshbai and the statement of mother of deceased Rukmabai (PW. 6). 9. Leelabai (PW. 5) has stated that deceased disclosed to her that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were picking up quarrel and getting her beating by backbiting from her husband Shyamlal whereas Rukmabai (PW. 6) has stated that deceased disclosed her that her in-laws were harassing her for dowry whereas Leelabai (PW. 5) has nowhere stated that beating was given to the deceased for demand of dowry. Kailash (PW. 8) has stated that father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband all were beating her and demanding dowry. There is no consistency in the statements of all the three witnesses regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment. It has come in the statements of these witnesses that house of the appellant was situated in residential locality, but none of the persons of that locality was examined by the prosecution to establish that deceased was ill-treated by the accused persons. 10. Leelabai (PW. 5), Rukmabai (PW. 6) and Kailash (PW. 8) have admitted regarding incident occurred at the house of parents of the deceased, with the deceased regarding her molestation by one Rakesh and taking her to railway station for rape. They have also admitted that deceased Santoshbai lodged the report to this effect in the police station and case was pending against Rakesh. The learned trial Court has mentioned all these facts in para 18 of the impugned judgment and held that deceased could have committed suicide within four days when she was at her parents house if she was really worried because of the incident of molestation and abduction by Rakesh. Therefore, she did not commit suicide because of the said incident in her matrimonial house and committed suicide because of ill-treatment for demand of dowry. 11. Therefore, she did not commit suicide because of the said incident in her matrimonial house and committed suicide because of ill-treatment for demand of dowry. 11. On due consideration, this Court is of the opinion that when there is no evidence on record regarding ill-treatment for demand of dowry or simple ill-treatment within these four days, it could not be presumed that deceased would have committed suicide because of ill-treatment for demand of dowry and possibility of her committing suicide by the said incident cannot be ruled out. This is true that she could have committed suicide within four days at her parents house, but it varies from person to person when a particular incident or trouble occurred and the manner in which the concerned persons reacts. There may be some sort of talk in her matrimonial house about the said incident and deceased might have felt shy and depression which might have led her to commit suicide. All these are presumptions and therefore, no concrete finding can be given as to why the deceased committed suicide especially when there is no evidence after subsiding the previous event and resolving of the earlier dispute between two families and mother-in-law of the deceased assured that they would keep her like their daughter. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant are hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.